Hublot Oceanographic Carbon 4000 vs 1000

By request of a fellow Purist, I visited the Hublot boutique and compared those two side-by-side. Thank you, sschew, for your request (he actually requested the close-up pics of 1000 carbon, but I dare compared 1000 and 4000)!

Side-by-side:

Left: 1000 Carbon - 732.QX.1140.RX

Right: 4000 Carbon - 731.QX.1140.RX

Both 48mm case, while 1000 has Chronograph and 4000 doesn't.

First, Oceanographic 1000 Carbon

Inner bezel rotator with the protector open.

Closed

I like the blue/ yellow dial - a good accent.

Now the comparison with 4000 - 4000 is much thicker.

A bit too thick on shore

And again, here is 1000 - thick, but not that bad. Could wear on shore day-off.

A bit big, but could wear on shore-leave

Hope you like it. I do prefer 1000, like you do.

Have a great weekend!

Ken

💰308 Marketplace Listings for Hublot›

Great watches

By: Spellbound : May 2nd, 2014-09:05

But only to wear over a wetsuit. And was the massive size and thickness necessary? With the pushers I suspect this watch is bordering 60mm. A small company like Pita Barcelona proved that serious dive watches do not need to be that big with their 43 mm Oc...

"Necessary"....?

By: KIH : May 2nd, 2014-10:00

... Sure, it doesn't need to. But many brands make watches today needlessly big, don't they? It's fashion and trend.... people ask for the big ones - "necessary" doesn't matter. This is hobby. Hobby has little to do with "necessary". Besides, no one would...

Hublot